* Dr Lincoln Flake is a senior analyst with the US Department of Defense. He has worked for 15 years at different agencies, including supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He was previously on the adjunct research faculty at the U.S. National Intelligence University and a visiting fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge University. Address for Correspondence: PO Box 1061, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE28 0QA, UK, office phone: 44 07487 735891; email: lincolnflake@yahoo.com ** All statements of fact, analysis, or opinion are the author’s own and do not reflect the official policy or position the Department of Defense (DoD), or the United States government.
{"title":"Russia and Information Warfare: a Whole-of-Society Approach","authors":"L. Flake","doi":"10.47459/LASR.2020.18.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47459/LASR.2020.18.7","url":null,"abstract":"* Dr Lincoln Flake is a senior analyst with the US Department of Defense. He has worked for 15 years at different agencies, including supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He was previously on the adjunct research faculty at the U.S. National Intelligence University and a visiting fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge University. Address for Correspondence: PO Box 1061, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE28 0QA, UK, office phone: 44 07487 735891; email: lincolnflake@yahoo.com ** All statements of fact, analysis, or opinion are the author’s own and do not reflect the official policy or position the Department of Defense (DoD), or the United States government.","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"163-175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48087138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Strategic Communication of NATO Enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group in Lithuania by Assessment of the Parties Involved in the Process","authors":"Vytenis Miliušas, V. Denisenko","doi":"10.47459/LASR.2020.18.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47459/LASR.2020.18.4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"67-98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47701109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract “Designed many years ago, NATO is obsolete”, said Donald Trump in January 2017. Yet in August 2017, he said the US would be very protective of the Baltic region. In the US. National Security Strategy published in December 2017, the Trump administration said it would abide by “Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. This article aims to analyze the US security policy during the Trump presidency, with a particular focus on military security and NATO’s role in it, and to assess its significance for the Baltic States. What are the guiding principles of Trump’s military security policy? What is NATO’s role in the Trump administration’s security policy? Is the administration’s policy regarding NATO coherent? Has the Trump administration’s military security policy changed compared to traditional US military security policy? Does the Trump administration plan to maintain its commitment to defend the Baltic States? What does Trump’s military security policy mean to the Baltic States? Based on the original study, the article discusses official positions of US officials (the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) expressed in strategic documents and political discourse, also analyzing initiatives taken by the administration based on compiled event data sets.
{"title":"The Trump Administration’s Security Policy and its Significance for the Baltic States","authors":"Gerda Jakštaitė","doi":"10.2478/lasr-2019-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lasr-2019-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “Designed many years ago, NATO is obsolete”, said Donald Trump in January 2017. Yet in August 2017, he said the US would be very protective of the Baltic region. In the US. National Security Strategy published in December 2017, the Trump administration said it would abide by “Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. This article aims to analyze the US security policy during the Trump presidency, with a particular focus on military security and NATO’s role in it, and to assess its significance for the Baltic States. What are the guiding principles of Trump’s military security policy? What is NATO’s role in the Trump administration’s security policy? Is the administration’s policy regarding NATO coherent? Has the Trump administration’s military security policy changed compared to traditional US military security policy? Does the Trump administration plan to maintain its commitment to defend the Baltic States? What does Trump’s military security policy mean to the Baltic States? Based on the original study, the article discusses official positions of US officials (the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) expressed in strategic documents and political discourse, also analyzing initiatives taken by the administration based on compiled event data sets.","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"35 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45461911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Often the best predictor of a new US president’s foreign policy is to look at his predecessor. Yet each president does leave his impact on American foreign policy. Donald Trump came to office with no government or foreign policy experience and his presidential campaign rhetoric suggested significant changes in a US foreign policy, which he described as “America First.” This article examines Trump’s foreign policy after nearly three years both in terms of how it is made and across three levels—interests, strategy, and tactics. The argument is that while Trump’s foreign policy shares many continuities with his predecessors, there are notable differences, especially in terms of how it is made and the conflict between his intensely personal style and the control the US foreign policy establishment has over him. Finally, any permanent changes in US foreign policy beyond Trump may have more to do with larger shifts in a world that is no longer dominated by the US.
{"title":"American Foreign Policy in the Age of Donald Trump","authors":"D. Schultz","doi":"10.2478/lasr-2019-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lasr-2019-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Often the best predictor of a new US president’s foreign policy is to look at his predecessor. Yet each president does leave his impact on American foreign policy. Donald Trump came to office with no government or foreign policy experience and his presidential campaign rhetoric suggested significant changes in a US foreign policy, which he described as “America First.” This article examines Trump’s foreign policy after nearly three years both in terms of how it is made and across three levels—interests, strategy, and tactics. The argument is that while Trump’s foreign policy shares many continuities with his predecessors, there are notable differences, especially in terms of how it is made and the conflict between his intensely personal style and the control the US foreign policy establishment has over him. Finally, any permanent changes in US foreign policy beyond Trump may have more to do with larger shifts in a world that is no longer dominated by the US.","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"11 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48176125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The European security architecture inherited from the period of the Cold War encompasses a few most important international organisations – first of all, NATO, EU and OSCE, members of which are most European countries – and institutional rules as well as numerous informal patterns of state behaviour and status. 2019 is to see the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, which is one of the key institutional “axes” of the European security architecture. This will potentially have an impact on the future of the entire organisation, hence – on the security on the old continent. This article aims at compiling a set of alternative scenarios of the evolution of the European security through the use of the scenario building technique which is still bizarre in political science. To this end, interaction of four “driving forces”, namely, 1) USA involvement, 2) threats of regional scope, 3) leadership of Germany (and France) in the promotion of the European integration, and 4) stability of the UK government, in the next seven years, is analysed. Various combinations of these variables lead to the crystallisation of three alternative plots of scenarios: 1) closer European security and defence union, 2) new Cold War, and 3) revival of the global “Anglosphere”. Still, as seen from the practice of application of the scenario building technique, in the medium term, a parallel and only partial mate-rialisation of all three scenarios is most likely.
{"title":"European Security Architecture after the United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union: Future Scenarios","authors":"Vytautas Isoda","doi":"10.2478/lasr-2019-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lasr-2019-0007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The European security architecture inherited from the period of the Cold War encompasses a few most important international organisations – first of all, NATO, EU and OSCE, members of which are most European countries – and institutional rules as well as numerous informal patterns of state behaviour and status. 2019 is to see the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, which is one of the key institutional “axes” of the European security architecture. This will potentially have an impact on the future of the entire organisation, hence – on the security on the old continent. This article aims at compiling a set of alternative scenarios of the evolution of the European security through the use of the scenario building technique which is still bizarre in political science. To this end, interaction of four “driving forces”, namely, 1) USA involvement, 2) threats of regional scope, 3) leadership of Germany (and France) in the promotion of the European integration, and 4) stability of the UK government, in the next seven years, is analysed. Various combinations of these variables lead to the crystallisation of three alternative plots of scenarios: 1) closer European security and defence union, 2) new Cold War, and 3) revival of the global “Anglosphere”. Still, as seen from the practice of application of the scenario building technique, in the medium term, a parallel and only partial mate-rialisation of all three scenarios is most likely.","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"177 - 194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43390762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article analyses the dynamics of military cooperation between Russia and Belarus at the time when Russia’s aggression against Ukraine revealed president Vladimir Putin’s objective to consolidate control over his interest zone in the nearest post-soviet area at all hazards. This could be called the time-period during which endurance of military cooperation is increased and during which Russia demonstrates its principle ambition to expand the use of military capabilities while leaning on Belorussian military capabilities, military infrastructure and territory as a bridgehead for potential military actions. For this reason, the aim of the paper is to outline the key factors which determine military integration of the both countries, or, more specifically, to discuss orientations and objectives set forth for building military cooperation as laid down in the documents regulating military policy, to discuss and assess practical cases of strengthening of interaction between military capabilities (strategic military exercises), to reveal the accomplishments of military and technical cooperation, problems it might pose and potential prospects of its development.
{"title":"Military Cooperation between Russia and Belarus: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives","authors":"Virgilijus Pugačiauskas","doi":"10.2478/lasr-2019-0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lasr-2019-0010","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article analyses the dynamics of military cooperation between Russia and Belarus at the time when Russia’s aggression against Ukraine revealed president Vladimir Putin’s objective to consolidate control over his interest zone in the nearest post-soviet area at all hazards. This could be called the time-period during which endurance of military cooperation is increased and during which Russia demonstrates its principle ambition to expand the use of military capabilities while leaning on Belorussian military capabilities, military infrastructure and territory as a bridgehead for potential military actions. For this reason, the aim of the paper is to outline the key factors which determine military integration of the both countries, or, more specifically, to discuss orientations and objectives set forth for building military cooperation as laid down in the documents regulating military policy, to discuss and assess practical cases of strengthening of interaction between military capabilities (strategic military exercises), to reveal the accomplishments of military and technical cooperation, problems it might pose and potential prospects of its development.","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"231 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43821933","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Since the beginning of Alexander Lukashenko’s presidency, the Belarusian authorities’ attitude towards the Belarusian language was seen as rather negative. However, amid turbulent events in the region, the official narratives on Belarusian statehood changed in 2014 with the rise of the so-called soft-Belarusization phenomenon. A new political discourse – positive towards formerly distinct opposition symbols, particularly the Belarusian language, was adopted by a number of different-rank government officials. Furthermore, it has been accompanied by a number of practical changes in government and civil society operations within an identity-building domain. This paper presents the results of a critical discourse analysis of the newly formed social representation reshaping the role of the Belarusian language, and the overall cognition of Belarusianness.
{"title":"The Reconstruction of Belarusian Identity Narratives: The Belarusian Language","authors":"Juljan Jachovič","doi":"10.2478/lasr-2019-0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lasr-2019-0011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since the beginning of Alexander Lukashenko’s presidency, the Belarusian authorities’ attitude towards the Belarusian language was seen as rather negative. However, amid turbulent events in the region, the official narratives on Belarusian statehood changed in 2014 with the rise of the so-called soft-Belarusization phenomenon. A new political discourse – positive towards formerly distinct opposition symbols, particularly the Belarusian language, was adopted by a number of different-rank government officials. Furthermore, it has been accompanied by a number of practical changes in government and civil society operations within an identity-building domain. This paper presents the results of a critical discourse analysis of the newly formed social representation reshaping the role of the Belarusian language, and the overall cognition of Belarusianness.","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"249 - 270"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49435410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Nationalism is one of the great ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries, whose demise was widely expected with certainty at the end of the 20th century. But Brexit, the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States and constant gaining force by the Radical Right political parties in Europe sparkled discussion on the role of nationalism in the international system of the 21st century. The article answers the question whether this reanimation of nationalism is a long-term trend or merely an episode that supports predictions of its fading away.
{"title":"The Role of Nationalism in the 21st Century System of International Relations","authors":"Nortautas Statkus","doi":"10.2478/lasr-2019-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lasr-2019-0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Nationalism is one of the great ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries, whose demise was widely expected with certainty at the end of the 20th century. But Brexit, the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States and constant gaining force by the Radical Right political parties in Europe sparkled discussion on the role of nationalism in the international system of the 21st century. The article answers the question whether this reanimation of nationalism is a long-term trend or merely an episode that supports predictions of its fading away.","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"125 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48525129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Since 2016, the Trump administration has announced a series of protectionist measures: it suspended or reviewed the US participation in free trade agreements, taxing some imports, restricting foreign access to high-tech sector, and so on. Trump’s international economic policy has provoked debate in the US and around the world. Critics rushed to state that Trump was leading the US into international isolation, which could in turn lead to a global economic downturn. Foreign countries have also joined the ranks of Trump critics. China said it would resist protectionism and fight for free trade, while the longtime US allies France, Germany and Britain had to admit that the transatlantic community was going through difficult times. This article seeks to answer two questions: why has the US President administration been pursuing protectionist international economic policy and how does this policy affect transatlantic relations and Lithuania’s international position?
{"title":"Donald Trump’s International Economic Policy from the World System’s Perspective","authors":"Valentinas Beržiūnas","doi":"10.2478/lasr-2019-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lasr-2019-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since 2016, the Trump administration has announced a series of protectionist measures: it suspended or reviewed the US participation in free trade agreements, taxing some imports, restricting foreign access to high-tech sector, and so on. Trump’s international economic policy has provoked debate in the US and around the world. Critics rushed to state that Trump was leading the US into international isolation, which could in turn lead to a global economic downturn. Foreign countries have also joined the ranks of Trump critics. China said it would resist protectionism and fight for free trade, while the longtime US allies France, Germany and Britain had to admit that the transatlantic community was going through difficult times. This article seeks to answer two questions: why has the US President administration been pursuing protectionist international economic policy and how does this policy affect transatlantic relations and Lithuania’s international position?","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"63 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46255537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article aims to reveal the themes, intensity and reasons for the securitization of the Baltic States building on the analysis of the public rhetoric of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in 2008-2017. The current bilateral relations between Russia and the Baltic States happen to be hostile, often involving mutual criticism, aggressive rhetoric from the Russian side, and the security policy of the Baltic States is often seen in Russia as a threat to its national security. The results of this study make it possible to identify the publicly declared interests of Russia and their evolution vis-à-vis the Baltic States and to see the importance of the Baltic States in Russia’s common foreign and security policy. The theory of constructivism serves as a theoretical basis for this study. On the basis of this theory, the author has developed a model for the study of the securitization of the Baltic States, which helps to highlight the context in which the Baltic States recur most frequently and to assesses the goals pursued by the securitization of the Baltic States.
{"title":"Analysis of Securitization of the Baltic States in the Rhetoric of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov","authors":"Erikas Kaukas","doi":"10.2478/lasr-2019-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lasr-2019-0009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article aims to reveal the themes, intensity and reasons for the securitization of the Baltic States building on the analysis of the public rhetoric of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in 2008-2017. The current bilateral relations between Russia and the Baltic States happen to be hostile, often involving mutual criticism, aggressive rhetoric from the Russian side, and the security policy of the Baltic States is often seen in Russia as a threat to its national security. The results of this study make it possible to identify the publicly declared interests of Russia and their evolution vis-à-vis the Baltic States and to see the importance of the Baltic States in Russia’s common foreign and security policy. The theory of constructivism serves as a theoretical basis for this study. On the basis of this theory, the author has developed a model for the study of the securitization of the Baltic States, which helps to highlight the context in which the Baltic States recur most frequently and to assesses the goals pursued by the securitization of the Baltic States.","PeriodicalId":37780,"journal":{"name":"Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"211 - 229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44250330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：